Transactional links between social anxiety symptoms and parenting across adolescence: Between- and within-person associations

(1)

Tilburg University

Transactional links between social anxiety symptoms and parenting across

adolescence

Nelemans, Stefanie A.; Keijsers, L.; Colpin, H.; Van Leeuwen, K.; Bijttebier, Patricia;

Verschueren, Karine; Goossens, L.

Published in: Child Development DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13236 Publication date: 2020 Document Version

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Link to publication in Tilburg University Research Portal

Citation for published version (APA):

Nelemans, S. A., Keijsers, L., Colpin, H., Van Leeuwen, K., Bijttebier, P., Verschueren, K., & Goossens, L. (2020). Transactional links between social anxiety symptoms and parenting across adolescence: Between- and within-person associations. Child Development, 91(3), 814-828. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13236

General rights

Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain

• You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal Take down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

(2)

Transactional Links Between Social Anxiety Symptoms and Parenting Across

Adolescence: Between- and Within-Person Associations

Stefanie A. Nelemans

KU Leuven and Utrecht University

Loes Keijsers

Tilburg University

Hilde Colpin, Karla van Leeuwen, Patricia Bijttebier, Karine Verschueren, and Luc Goossens

KU Leuven

This 4-year longitudinal multi-informant study examined between- and within-person associations between adolescent social anxiety symptoms and parenting (parental psychological control and autonomy support). A community sample of 819 adolescents (46.1% girls; MageT1= 13.4 years) reported annually on social anxiety

symptoms and both adolescents and mothers reported on parenting. Between-person associations suggested that adolescent social anxiety symptoms were associated with higher adolescent- and mother-reported psycho-logical control and lower mother-reported autonomy support. At the within-person level, however, mothers reported lower psychological control and higher autonomy support after periods with higher adolescent social anxiety symptoms. Our ﬁndings illustrate the importance of distinguishing among between-person and within-person associations and including perceptions of both dyad members in longitudinal research concern-ing parentconcern-ing and adolescent mental health.

Adolescence is a critical phase for the development of social anxiety symptoms, which involve a marked and persistent fear of one or more social or performance situations in which the person is exposed to unfamiliar people or to possible scrutiny by others (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Not only are social anxiety symptoms among the most prevalent psychopathological symptoms in the general population during adolescence, but these symptoms also appear to be quite persistent over time and are associated with a wide range of psychosocial difficulties, such as difficulties in rela-tionships with parents, peers, and problems in the school context (Bl€ote, Miers, Heyne, & Westenberg, 2015; Kessler et al., 2012; Kingery, Erdley, Marshall, Whitaker, & Reuter, 2010). Consequently, research that focuses on the development of social anxiety symptoms in adolescence and identifies factors that affect this development is of crucial importance.

In contemporary theoretical models, low facilita-tive or high constraining parenting, that is, parent-ing behavior characterized by low autonomy support or high overprotection or overcontrol (e.g., psychological control), is assumed to play a promi-nent role in the development of social anxiety symptoms (Spence & Rapee, 2016; Wong & Rapee, 2015, 2016). Even though these processes through which parents affect their youth take place at the level of the individual family, empirical support for this association between youth anxiety symptoms and parenting is largely based on cross-sectional studies and between-family, or between-person analyses such as regression analyses or structural equation models at the group level (for meta-analy-tic reviews, see McLeod, Wood, & Weisz, 2007; Van der Bruggen, Stams, & B€ogels, 2008; Yap, Pilking-ton, Ryan, & Jorm, 2014). These between-person ﬁndings have illuminated that adolescents with higher levels of social anxiety experience different

The research project in this manuscript was funded by the research council of KU Leuven (Grant GOA/12/009: “STRATE-GIES” project). This study was supported by the Internal Funds of KU Leuven awarded to Stefanie A. Nelemans (Postdoctoral Mandate Internal Funds, PDM/15/085). The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to pub-lish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stefanie A. Nelemans, Department of Youth and Family, Utrecht University, PO box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic mail may be sent to s.a.nelemans@uu.nl.

Child Development published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Research in Child Development.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is noncommercial and no modiﬁcations or adaptations are made. 0009-3920/2019/xxxx-xxxx

(3)

parenting compared to peers with lower levels of social anxiety, here called between-family estimates. However, recent methodological advances have raised concerns that between-family estimates need not be related to the within-family process under examination, that is, the dynamic process over time occurring at the level of a parent and his or her own child (Hamaker, 2012; Keijsers, 2016; Kievit, Frankenhuis, Waldorp, & Borsboom, 2013). These concerns build on a much older issue of debate on the distinction between between-person and within-person estimates, which has traditionally been examined using multilevel modeling (for discus-sions, see Molenaar, 2004; Papp, 2004). Conse-quently, in light of this renewed methodological debate on how parenting dynamics need to be studied, it is at this moment still unclear whether facilitative or constraining parenting may affect adolescent social anxiety symptoms within families across time. In other words: Do adolescents really display a change in symptoms following changes in the parenting behaviors of their own parents? In the present study, we therefore aimed to examine how within-family ﬂuctuations in parental psycho-logical control and parental autonomy support (Joussemet, Landry, & Koestner, 2008) were associ-ated with within-family ﬂuctuations in adolescent social anxiety symptoms across time, and vice versa. For this purpose, we applied random-inter-cept cross-lagged panel models (RI-CLPMs) to dis-entangle within- and between-person associations (Hamaker, Kuiper, & Grasman, 2015; Keijsers, 2016).

Longitudinal Associations Between Parenting and Adolescent Social Anxiety Symptoms

Adolescents in families with more overcontrolling and less autonomy supporting parents are expected to experience more social anxiety symptoms than adolescents in families with less overcontrolling and more autonomy supporting parents (Spence & Rapee, 2016; Wong & Rapee, 2015). There are several mechanisms through which high parental psycholog-ical control and low parental autonomy support may be associated with increased levels of adolescent (so-cial) anxiety symptoms (Van der Bruggen et al., 2008). For example, psychologically controlling and nonautonomy supporting parents tend to be direc-tive and overmanage situations for their adolescents, control and restrict their adolescents’ behaviors and activities, and discourage independence and auton-omy. By doing so, such parents do not provide ado-lescents with occasions to explore their environment

and develop new and constructive coping and prob-lem-solving strategies for dealing with novel or chal-lenging (social) situations (Barlow, 2002). In this way, they increase adolescents’ perception of (social) threat (Rapee, 2001) and reduce their perceived con-trol over (social) threat (Chorpita & Barlow, 1998). As such, in families with higher parental psychologi-cal control and lower parental autonomy support, adolescents’ may experience higher levels of adoles-cent social anxiety symptoms than in families with lower parental psychological control and higher par-ental autonomy support.

Similar mechanisms may be expected to operate within families. Speciﬁcally, when a parent increases his/her psychological control or decreases his/her autonomy support, these changes in parenting behaviors likely go together with greater restriction of the adolescent’s behavior and activities, and diminished opportunities for the adolescent in that family to explore the environment and develop new and constructive coping and problem-solving strate-gies for dealing with novel or challenging (social) sit-uations. Subsequently, the adolescent in that family may perceive increased (social) threat and reduced control over (social) threat, which is associated with increases in social anxiety symptoms. An increase in parental psychological control or decrease in paren-tal autonomy support within a family may therefore be associated with an increase in adolescent social anxiety symptoms in that particular family.

Importantly, however, adolescents are not passive recipients of parenting but rather play an active role in their development by eliciting, evoking, reinforc-ing, and shaping their environment, including their parents, through continuous interactions (Kerr & Stattin, 2003; Lollis & Kuczynski, 1997). Child-driven or reciprocal inﬂuences may be particularly impor-tant to consider during adolescence, when there is a realignment of the parent–child relationship that forces this relationship to become more egalitarian and reciprocal (Laursen & Collins, 2009). In fact, over time reciprocal effects may be expected in which ado-lescent social anxiety symptoms elicit psychologi-cally controlling and nonautonomy supporting parenting, as parents may be trying to adequately deal with their adolescent’s symptomatology by increasing their parental control and decreasing their autonomy support. This may in turn increase adoles-cent social anxiety symptoms because of the afore-mentioned mechanisms that deprive adolescents of opportunities for personal growth, adequate threat assessment, and adequate coping.

(4)

parenting has been cross-sectional in nature (McLeod et al., 2007; Spence & Rapee, 2016; Van der Bruggen et al., 2008; Wong & Rapee, 2015; Yap et al., 2014), which precludes conclusions about the direction of these effects over time. The few longitudinal studies that have been conducted typically rely on between-family estimates, and the validity of inferences that can be drawn from such between-family estimated concerning within-family processes is an ongoing issue of debate (Hamaker, 2012; Hamaker et al., 2015; Keijsers, 2016; Kievit et al., 2013; Molenaar, 2004).

Within-Family Hypotheses Versus Between-Family Analyses

In order to draw accurate inferences from statisti-cal models on parenting dynamics, it is important to carefully match the analysis to the level of the hypothesis under examination (for a taxonomy, see Keijsers & Van Roekel, in press). For instance, when it comes to parenting of adolescents, it may be inter-esting to know in which families adolescents experi-ence more social anxiety problems. When this is the question, a between-family analytical comparison would be most suitable. Such analyses typically indi-cate that adolescents with more overcontrolling and less autonomy supporting parents (compared to their peers) experience more social anxiety symptoms. However, when it comes to tapping into the transac-tional dynamics within families, that is, the processes through which parents and adolescents affect each other over time, the research question is completely different. In that case, researchers want to ﬁnd out whether the same adolescent behaves, feels, or acts differentially in periods when his or her parents act differentially, and vice versa. This is a within-family question (see Keijsers, 2016, for a conceptual intro-duction of this distinction). Both types of questions have theoretical importance, but because they are different in nature, they need to be tested with differ-ent analytical models that adequately tap into the different levels of analysis. Even though it is (still) common practice to test a within-family hypothesis at the between-family level, this comes at the risk of ecological fallacies in the inferences that we draw (Kievit et al., 2013).

For instance, in one study (Aunola, Tolvanen, Viljaranta, & Nurmi, 2013), youths’ negative emo-tions were associated with increased levels of par-ental psychological control when comparing youths at the between-family level. At the within-family level, however, youths’ negative emotions preceded a decrease in their parent’s psychological control

over time. Moreover, in a recent study (Dietvorst, Hiemstra, Hillegers, & Keijsers, 2017), adolescents’ secrecy was associated with increased levels of ado-lescent perceived privacy invasion when comparing adolescents at the between-family level. At the within-family level, however, higher levels of ado-lescents’ secrecy preceded decreased perceptions of privacy invasion by their parents. Finally, in another recent study (Rekker, Keijsers, Branje, Koot, & Meeus, 2017), parental control was not associated with levels of minor delinquency when comparing adolescents at the between-family level. At the within-family level, however, adolescents offended more in periods with increased parental control. These three studies illustrate that associations that tap into differences between persons may be differ-ent from the dynamic processes linking the same concepts within persons over time. In fact, estimates at the between-family and the within-family level can be reverse in sign and direction (e.g., Aunola et al., 2013; Dietvorst et al., 2017; Rekker et al., 2017; see also simulation studies by Hamaker et al., 2015), leading to a situation called a Simpson’s paradox.

In a longitudinal analytical approach that is widely used to test direction of effects over time, that is, the CLPM, no distinction is made between vari-ance at the between-family level and varivari-ance at the within-family level. This has recently led methodolo-gists to criticize this approach when the study aim is to test for within-family effects (Berry & Willoughby, 2017; Hamaker et al., 2015), and RI-CLPMs have been proposed as a suitable alternative that allows researchers to differentiate between the within-family and the between-within-family level. In general terms, it has been argued that although most devel-opmental theories formulate ideas about within-per-son change, the traditional analytical models used to test these ideas may not be entirely suited to get at the accurate level of inference, because they cannot disentangle within- and between-person associa-tions. Thus, even though CLPMs are extremely suit-able for testing directions of effects over time, they fall short when it comes to differentiating between within-family processes and between-family esti-mates.

The Present Study

(5)

Specifically, we examined at the within-family level how fluctuations in both constraining and facilita-tive parenting (i.e., parental psychological control and autonomy support) were longitudinally associ-ated with fluctuations in adolescent social anxiety symptoms, and vice versa. This approach implies that we examined these relationships with regard to state-like fluctuations over time at the within-family level, above and beyond trait-like associa-tions among these constructs at the between-family level (Hamaker et al., 2015). Based on thereotical expectations (Spence & Rapee, 2016; Wong & Rapee, 2015, 2016) and past between-family esti-mates (for meta-analytic reviews, see McLeod et al., 2007; Van der Bruggen et al., 2008; Yap et al., 2014), we expected to find that adolescents with higher levels of social anxiety experienced higher parental psychological control and lower parental autonomy support compared to peers with lower levels of social anxiety at the between-family level. In addition, we examined at the within-family level whether similiar associations were found. More-over, we examined these associations between ado-lescent social anxiety symptoms and parental psychological control and autonomy support rely-ing on multi-informant reports of parentrely-ing by the adolescent as well as by the mother.

Method Participants

Participants were 819 adolescents (46.1% girls; Mage T1= 13.38 years, SDage T1= 0.68) and their

mothers (N = 619; Mage T1= 43.30 years, SDage

T1= 4.49) who took part in the longitudinal

“Studying Transactions in Adolescence: Testing Genes in Interaction with Environments” (STRATE-GIES) study in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. All participants attended Grade 7 (49.2%) or Grade 8 (50.8%) at the start of the study. Most participants were born in Belgium (94.7%) and lived in intact two-parent families (79.1%). Partici-pants were asked to complete questionnaires at four annual assessments.

Sample attrition was on average 14.6% per year for adolescents and 12.4% per year for mothers from the ﬁrst to the fourth measurement occasion. There were no signiﬁcant differences between adolescents who were still participating at the fourth measure-ment occasion and those dropping out of the study on social anxiety symptoms at the start of the study, F(1, 734) = 0.04, p = .84, adolescent-reported auton-omy support at the start of the study, F(1,

769) = 0.03, p = .87, sex, v²(1) = 2.66, p = .10, age, F (1, 809) = 0.23, p = .63, or grade level, v²(1) = 3.18, p = .08. However, adolescents who were still partici-pating at the fourth measurement occasion reported lower levels of adolescent-reported parental psycho-logical control at the start of the study, F(1, 753) = 7.83, p = .01, partial g2= .01, than those dropping out of the study. Furthermore, there were no signiﬁcant differences between mothers who were still participating at the fourth measurement occasion and those dropping out of the study regarding age, F (1, 602) = 0.00, p = .99, mother-reported parental psychological control at the start of the study, F(1, 586) = 3.34, p = .07, and mother-reported parental autonomy support at the start of the study, F(1, 591) = 1.41, p = .24.

Procedure

Data collection for the STRATEGIES study started in February–March 2012 in nine secondary schools in Flanders. A randomized multistage sampling approach was used to select participants. Several sec-ondary schools from different provinces were invited to take part in the research project, stratiﬁed by edu-cational track in order to include participants from the academic, technical, and vocational tracks. From the nine schools that were willing to participate, classes from Grades 7 (MageT1= 12.89 years) and 8

(Mage T1= 13.85 years) were randomly selected to

participate. Within these classes, all adolescents were invited to participate. Active written informed con-sent was obtained from both parents and adolescents before the start of the study. At each measurement occasion, participants completed questionnaires in a 50-min session in their classroom during regular school time. Research assistants supervised these ses-sions and provided instructions, ensured conﬁden-tiality, and answered questions when necessary. Mothers were invited to complete their question-naires at home either online or on paper by them-selves at a moment that suited them best. This study received ethical approval from the Biomedical Insti-tutional Review Board at the KU Leuven, Belgium.

Measures Social Anxiety Symptoms

(6)

subscales, Fear of Negative Evaluation, Social Avoidance and Distress to New Situations, and Generalized Social Avoidance and Distress, which can be combined into a total SAS-A score. The 12-item short version of the SAS-A consists of the four highest loading items for each subscale that have been consistently found to load substantially on their designated factor in previous studies. Sample items include“I worry about what others say about me,” “I feel shy around people I don’t know,” and “I am quiet when I’m with a group of people.” All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (all the time). We found good internal consistency for the total SAS-A scale across all 4 years (Cronbach’s a = .91–.92). Higher scores reﬂect higher mean levels of social anxiety and means were computed for all pants without missing values as only few partici-pants had missing data.

Parental Psychological Control and Autonomy Support We used the 9-item psychological control and 8-item autonomy support subscales described in Janssens et al. (2015). These subscales are Dutch adaptations of the well-established Psychological Control Scale—Youth Self-Report (Barber, 2002) and the Perceptions of Parents Scale (Grolnick, Ryan, & Deci, 1991), respectively. Adolescents reported on their perception of parental psychologi-cal control and autonomy support and mothers reported on their perception of their own parental psychological control and autonomy support across 4 successive years. Sample items include “My par-ents will avoid looking at me when I have disap-pointed them” for adolescent-reported parental psychological control and“I help my son/daughter to choose his/her own direction” for mother-reported parental autonomy support. All items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree). We found good internal consistency for both the psychological control subscale (Cronbach’s a = .71–.83) and the autonomy support subscale (Cronbach’s a = .80–.88) for both informants across all 4 years. Higher scores reﬂect higher mean levels of parental psychological control and autonomy support and means were com-puted for all participants without missing values as only few participants had missing data.

Statistical Analyses

For the purposes of the present study, we con-structed four RI-CLPMs (for a graphical

representation, see Figure 1) in Mplus Version 7.4 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2015), as well as four tra-ditional CLPMs (see Supporting Information). Specif-ically, separate models were estimated for adolescent-reports of parental psychological control, adolescent-reports of parental autonomy support, mother-reports of parental psychological control, and mother-reports of parental autonomy support. All syntaxes are available from the ﬁrst author upon request.

We used maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with robust standard errors (computed using a sandwich estimator) and chi-square robust to non-normality (i.e., MLR estimator; Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2015). Model fit was assessed with the com-parative fit index (CFI), the root-mean-squared error of approximation (RMSEA) and its 90% confi-dence interval (CI), and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), using conventional stan-dards (see Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2005). For rea-sons of parsimony—and given that we had no specific hypotheses regarding nonstationarity of the underlying within-person processes—all longitudi-nal parameters were constrained to be time invari-ant in our baseline RI-CLPMs (Kline, 2005). To examine potential changes in the within-person cor-related change and cross-lagged estimates over time, we tested whether freeing these longitudinal parameters of interest in our baseline RI-CLPMs in a stepwise manner resulted in a significantly better model fit. The comparative fit of models was tested using Satorra–Bentler scaled chi-square difference tests (Dv2SB; Satorra & Bentler, 2001). Little’s MCAR

test showed a normed v2(v2/df) of 1.05, suggesting that the data were likely missing at random (Bollen, 1989). Missing data were handled with full informa-tion maximum likelihood (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2015). We reported on STDYX standardized estimates (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2015), which standardizes each association on its own respective level of variation (Schuurman, Ferrer, De Boer-Son-nenschein, & Hamaker, 2016).

Results Descriptive Statistics

(7)

psychological control, r = .02 to .17; and mother-reported autonomy support, r = .03 to .09, across 4 years. Furthermore, moderate positive concurrent associations were found between reports of differ-ent informants on pardiffer-ental psychological control, r= .24 to .37, and parental autonomy support, r= .18 to .27, across 4 years. Intraclass correlation coefﬁcients (ICCs) suggested that a substantial part of the variance in all study variables was located at the within-person level. In other words, a substan-tial part of the variation observed was due to ﬂuc-tuations over time in the study variables and not to stable between-person differences. The exact esti-mates were: 29.8% for social anxiety symptoms, 33.2% for adolescent-reported psychological control, 34.4% for adolescent-reported autonomy support, 29.5% for mother-reported psychological control, and 33.6% for mother-reported autonomy support. In addition, ICCs in a three-level structure, in which between-person variance was further differentiated from between-classroom variance, suggested that a negligible part of the variance in all study variables was located at the classroom-level (i.e., ICCs ranged

between .005 and .053). We have therefore continued with our planned two-level RI-CLPMs.

Table 2 provides an overview of all parameter estimates in our four RI-CLPMs, which are described next in greater detail.

RI-CLPM Adolescent Social Anxiety Symptoms and Adolescent-Reported Parenting

Our fully constrained baseline RI-CLPMs showed good-to-excellent ﬁt concerning both adolescent-reported parental psychological control, v2(19)= 42.10, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04 [.02, .06], SRMR = .05, and adolescent-reported parental autonomy sup-port, v2(19)= 45.98, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04 [.03, .06], SRMR = .07. Stepwise freeing the within-person correlated change, Dv2SB(2)= 3.92, p = .14, and the

cross-lagged paths, Dv2SB(4) = 8.14, p = .09, over

time did not significantly improve model fit for ado-lescent-reported psychological control. For reasons of parsimony, we therefore kept all longitudinal struc-tural parameters constrained in our final RI-CLPM concerning adolescent-reported psychological

(8)

control. For adolescent-reported autonomy support, freeing the within-person correlated change over time did not signiﬁcantly improve model ﬁt, Dv2

SB(2) = 0.72, p = .70, but freeing the cross-lagged

paths did, Dv2SB(4)= 11.25, p = .02. Speciﬁcally,

free-ing the cross-lagged paths from adolescent-reported autonomy support to later social anxiety symptoms signiﬁcantly improved model ﬁt, Dv2

SB(2) = 9.18,

p = .01, whereas freeing the cross-lagged paths from social anxiety symptoms to later adolescent-reported autonomy did not, Dv2SB(2)= 4.57, p = .10. In our

ﬁnal RI-CLPM concerning adolescent-reported par-ental autonomy support, we therefore freely esti-mated the cross-lagged paths from adolescent-reported autonomy support to later social anxiety symptoms, v2(17) = 36.63, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .04 [.02, .06], SRMR= .07.

At the between-person level, adolescents with more social anxiety symptoms reported higher levels of psychological control compared to adolescents with lower social anxiety symptoms, w= .27, p < .001, but did not report a distinct level of adoles-cent-reported parental autonomy support, w = .08, p = .30. At the within-person level, concurrent asso-ciations suggested that adolescents reported higher social anxiety symptoms at times when they experi-enced higher levels of levels of parental

psychological control, ws= .10 to .20, ps = .003–.08, but there were no signiﬁcant associations between adolescent social anxiety symptoms and adolescent-reported parental autonomy support, ws= .04 to .08, ps= .14–.44. Importantly, after a temporary increase in social anxiety symptoms, adolescents’ own perceptions of both parental psychological con-trol, p= .39, and autonomy support, p = .24, did not change, nor were there any reverse effects from ado-lescents’ own perceptions of both parental psycho-logical control, p= .76, and autonomy support, ps= .07–.43, to adolescent social anxiety symptoms.

In sum, when comparing families to each other at the between-person level, adolescent-reported parental psychological control was the highest for adolescents with high social anxiety symptoms, but no associations were found between social anxiety symptoms and adolescent-reported parental auton-omy support. At the within-family level, similar concurrent associations were found, with adoles-cents reporting higher social anxiety symptoms at times when they experienced higher levels of paren-tal psychological control. However, a temporary increase in adolescent social anxiety symptoms did not precede or follow increased levels of adoles-cent-reported psychological control or decreased levels of adolescent-reported autonomy support.

RI-CLPM Adolescent Social Anxiety Symptoms and Mother-Reported Parenting

Our fully constrained baseline RI-CLPMs showed good-to-excellent ﬁt concerning both mother-reported parental psychological control, v2(19)= 45.41, CFI = .98, RMSEA = .04 [.03, .06], SRMR = .06, and mother-reported parental autonomy sup-port, v2(19)= 29.53, CFI = .99, RMSEA = .03 [.00, .04], SRMR= .09. Stepwise freeing the within-per-son correlated change, Dv2SB(2) = 5.23, p = .07 and

Dv2

SB(2)= 0.51, p = .78, respectively, and the

cross-lagged paths, Dv2SB(4)= 4.78, p = .31 and Dv2SB(4)=

4.82, p = .31, respectively, over time did not signifi-cantly improve model fit for both mother-reported parental psychological control and autonomy sup-port. For reasons of parsimony, we therefore kept all longitudinal structural parameters constrained in our final RI-CLPMs concerning mother-reported parenting.

At the between-person level, mothers of adoles-cents with more social anxiety symptoms reported higher levels of psychological control, w= .14, p = .03, and lower levels of autonomy support com-pared to mothers of adolescents with lower social anxiety symptoms, w= .19, p = .02. At the

within-Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations of all Study Variables Across All 4 Years

Variable M SD

Social anxiety symptoms T1 2.38 .80

Adolescent-reported psychological control T1 1.95 .65

Mother-reported psychological control T1 1.77 .50

Adolescent-reported autonomy support T1 3.90 .64

Mother-reported autonomy support T1 4.18 .45

(9)

person level, concurrent associations from T2 to T4

suggested that mothers reported higher levels of autonomy support at times when their adolescent reported higher social anxiety symptoms, ws = .14 to .19, ps = .01, but there were no signiﬁcant associa-tions between mother-reported parental psychologi-cal control and adolescent social anxiety symptoms, ws = .08 to .06, ps = .22–39. Importantly, after a temporary increase in an adolescent’s social anxiety symptoms mothers reported lower levels of psycho-logical control, b= .07, bs = .11 to .14, p = .03, and higher levels of autonomy support 1 year later, b= .08, bs = .14 to .16, p = .03. This indicates the potential existence of a Simpson’s paradox, where the signs of the association at the between-person level and the within-person level, both concerning the within-person correlated change and the longitu-dinal cross-lagged paths, are in opposite directions. No reverse effects were found from mother-reported psychological control and autonomy support to ado-lescent social anxiety symptoms 1 year later, p= .51 and p = .36, respectively.

In sum, when comparing families to each other at the between-person level, mother-reported psycho-logical control was higher and mother-reported autonomy support was lower for adolescents with higher social anxiety symptoms. At the within-family level, in contrast, signiﬁcant concurrent associations suggested that mothers reported higher levels of

parental autonomy support at times when adoles-cents reported higher social anxiety symptoms. In addition, a temporary increase in adolescent social anxiety symptoms preceded, but did not follow, decreased levels of mother-reported psychological control, and increased levels of mother-reported autonomy support over time.

Auxiliary Analyses: CLPMs

In addition to our main RI-CLPMs, we con-structed four separate CLPMs for adolescent reports of parental psychological control, adolescent reports of parental autonomy support, mother reports of parental psychological control, and mother reports of parental autonomy support. In addition, to examine the robustness of our CLPM findings, we also conducted CLPMs controlling for adolescent age and sex as time-invariant covariates (see Sup-porting Information). The findings showed that when using standard CLPMs, in which between-person and within-between-person variance is blended, higher levels of adolescent social anxiety symptoms were significantly associated with higher levels of adolescent-reported parental psychological control and lower levels of adolescent-reported parental autonomy support 1 year later, but not vice versa, whereas adolescent social anxiety symptoms and both mother-reported parental psychological control

Table 2

Overview of All Parameter Estimates in Our Four Final RI-CLPMs

Model

Psychological control Autonomy support

b (SE) r/b b (SE) r/b

Adolescent report

Between-level association .07 (.02)*** .28 .02 (.02) .08

Social anxiety? parenting .05 (.06) .05 to .06 .06 (.05) .07 to .08

Parenting? social anxiety .02 (.07) .02 .17 (.09) to .12 (.07) .15 to .10

T1within-person correlations .06 (.02)*** .20 .02 (.02) .08

T2–T4within-person correlations .03 (.02) .10 to .14 .01 (.01) .04 to .05

Autoregressive paths social anxiety .23 (.11)* .23 to .26 .27 (.10)*** .26 to .30 Autoregressive paths parenting .34 (.08)*** .33 to .38 .19 (.07)*** .20 to .21 Mother report

Between-level association .03 (.01)* .14 .04 (.01)* .19

Social anxiety? parenting .07 (.04)* .11 to .14 .08 (.04)* .14 to .16

Parenting? social anxiety .06 (.09) .03 to .04 .10 (.10) .06

T1within-person correlations .01 (.01) .06 .01 (.01) .05

T2–T4within-person correlations .01 (.01) .07 to .08 .03 (.01)** .14 to .19

Autoregressive paths social anxiety .24 (.10)* .24 to .27 .24 (.09)** .23 to .27

Autoregressive paths parenting .09 (.09) .08 to .09 .19 (.09)* .19 to .21

(10)

and autonomy support were not signiﬁcantly related to one another over a 1-year period. Results were similar controlling for adolescent age and sex as time-invariant covariates, which attests to the robustness of the CLPMﬁndings.

Discussion

This 4-year longitudinal multi-informant study exam-ined between- and within-family associations between adolescent social anxiety symptoms and both parental psychological control and autonomy sup-port, as reported by both adolescents and mothers. We applied a RI-CLPM to disentangle within- and between-family associations and examine at the within-family level howfluctuations in parental psy-chological control and parental autonomy support were longitudinally associated with fluctuations in adolescent social anxiety symptoms and vice versa. As auxiliary analyses, we applied a CLPM, which is a common longitudinal analytical approach that is used to test direction of effects over time in which between-person and within-between-person variances are blended. Between-family associations in RI-CLPMs suggested that adolescents who reported more social anxiety symptoms compared to peers reported higher paren-tal psychological control, and their mothers reported both higher psychological control and lower auton-omy support, compared to (mothers of) peers. Con-current associations at the within-family level suggested also that adolescents reported higher levels of parental psychological control at times when they experienced higher levels of social anxiety symptoms, whereas mothers, in contrast, reported lower psycho-logical control and higher autonomy support at times when their adolescent experienced higher levels of social anxiety symptoms. In addition, longitudinal associations at the within-family level suggested that after periods with higher adolescent social anxiety symptoms, mothers reported lower psychological control and higher autonomy support across adoles-cence, whereas no longitudinal associations were found between adolescent social anxiety symptoms and adolescent-reported psychological control or autonomy support. Findings from RI-CLPMs and CLPMs also differed on important aspects, including the significance of associations and the sign (i.e., posi-tive or negaposi-tive) of estimates. In sum, our study sug-gests that important differences may exist in between-family and within-between-family associations, as well as between findings from RI-CLPMs and CLPMs, con-cerning associations between parenting and adoles-cent mental health.

In contemporary theoretical models on the devel-opmental psychopathology of social anxiety, par-enting behavior characterized by low autonomy support or high psychological control is assumed to play a prominent role in the development of social anxiety symptoms (Spence & Rapee, 2016; Wong & Rapee, 2015, 2016). At this moment, most empirical support for this association comes from cross-sec-tional studies and between-family analyses (for meta-analytic reviews, see McLeod et al., 2007; Van der Bruggen et al., 2008; Yap et al., 2014), which suggest that adolescents with higher levels of social anxiety indeed experience different parenting com-pared to other adolescents with lower levels of social anxiety. In line with these theoretical models and past studies, our findings concerning between-family associations in RI-CLPMs suggested that adolescent social anxiety symptoms go together with higher adolescent- and mother-reported paren-tal psychological control and lower mother-reported parental autonomy support across adolescence (cap-tured with associations between random intercepts). In addition, concurrentfindings at the within-family level were consistent in showing that adolescents reported higher levels of parental psychological con-trol at times when they experienced higher levels of social anxiety symptoms. However, these findings do not inform us whether adolescents really display a change in symptoms following changes in the par-enting behaviors of their own parents, that is, the parenting dynamics, or vice versa.

(11)

Concerning the latter, our finding that mothers reported responding with lower psychological con-trol and higher autonomy support to increases in adolescent social anxiety symptoms across adoles-cence not only contrasts with theoretical models on the developmental psychopathology of social anxiety and the findings of past studies (that typically did not specifically distinguish among between-family and within-family estimates) but also contrasts with our between-family associations. Specifically for the mother-reported parenting, ourfindings appeared to indicate the potential existence of a Simpson’s para-dox (Kievit et al., 2013), where the signs of the associ-ation at the between-person level and the within-person level are in opposite directions (see also Aunola et al., 2013; Dietvorst et al., 2017; Rekker et al., 2017). So we found that, rather than relying on more constraining parenting behaviors after being confronted with increases in adolescents’ social anxi-ety symptoms, mothers report resorting to more facilitative parenting behaviors. This might suggest that in response to increases in adolescents’ social anxiety symptoms, mothers want to support their adolescents in exploring their environment and developing new and constructive coping and prob-lem-solving strategies for dealing with novel or chal-lenging (social) situations (Barlow, 2002). In this way, they may strive to decrease adolescents’ percep-tion of (social) threat (Rapee, 2001) and induce per-ceived control over (social) threat (Chorpita & Barlow, 1998). Our findings may also fit with Coy-ne’s (1976) interactional theory of depression and a relationship erosion perspective (Branje, Hale, Frijns, & Meeus, 2010; Joiner & Coyne, 1999), which suggest that high symptoms of anxiety or depression in ado-lescents may initially elicit more supportive parental behaviors. Eventually, however, adolescents high in anxiety or depression are assumed to set into motion a process of support erosion in which the initially supportive parent–adolescent interaction becomes increasingly rejecting and constraining (e.g., Branje et al., 2010; Nelemans, Hale, Branje, Hawk, & Meeus, 2014). High symptoms of anxiety or depression may thereby eventually erode the parent–adolescent rela-tionship over time.

Interestingly, although mothers reported respond-ing with lower psychological control and higher autonomy support to increases in adolescent social anxiety symptoms across adolescence, this increase in facilitative parenting and decrease in constraining parenting was not perceived by adolescents (i.e., adolescent reports of increases or decreases in psy-chological control and autonomy support were unre-lated to increases or decreases in adolescents’ social

anxiety symptoms). However, adolescents perceived higher levels of parental psychological control at times when they experienced higher levels of social anxiety symptoms. From one perspective, our ﬁnd-ings may be in line with suggestions that high levels of youth (social) anxiety are associated with a wide range of negative cognitive biases (Clark & Wells, 1995; Creswell & O’Connor, 2011; Spence & Rapee, 2016; Wong & Rapee, 2015, 2016), which may pre-vent adolescents with increases in social anxiety symptoms from perceiving the increase in facilitative parenting and decrease in constraining parenting by their mothers.

It might also be that the well-meant increase in autonomy support reported by mothers is per-ceived as controlling by adolescents at times when they experience higher levels of social anxiety symptoms, because mothers’ autonomy support encourages adolescents to face the (social) situations they fear. Thereby, adolescents might feel pressured to face the situations they want to avoid because of their heightened levels of social anxiety and may feel psychologically controlled, because in their experience this increased maternal autonomy sup-port does not ﬁt with their current developmental needs. Although by increasing their autonomy sup-port mothers may in the long term strive to facili-tate the development of new and constructive coping and problem-solving strategies in their ado-lescents (Barlow, 2002) and thereby decrease adoles-cents’ perception of (social) threat (Rapee, 2001) and their social anxiety symptoms, this may be per-ceived by adolescents as psychologically controlling at times when they experience heightened levels of social anxiety.

(12)

function of informant agreement within families. Speciﬁcally, in order to assess how the associations of interest may vary as a function of informant (dis) agreement, a multilevel design with cross-level interactions may be used, which would require lar-ger samples and/or more repeated assessments.

Strengths, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

The present study has several important strengths. First, our longitudinal study was based on a large community sample (N = 819) followed across 4 successive years in which we applied one of the recently proposed novel models, that is, a RI-CLPM (Hamaker et al., 2015; Keijsers, 2016), to disentangle within- and between-family effects and examine at the within-family level how fluctuations in facilita-tive and constraining parenting were longitudinally associated withfluctuations in adolescent social anx-iety symptoms, and vice versa. Thereby, we exam-ined these relationships with regard to state-like fluctuations over time at the within-family level, above and beyond trait-like associations among these constructs at the between-family level. Second, we not only examined both positive and negative parental behaviors in relation to adolescent social anxiety symptoms, but we also relied on multi-infor-mant reports of parenting from both adolescents and mothers. Third, we were able to compare findings from RI-CLPM tofindings from traditional CLPM to shed light on the validity of inferences that can be drawn fromfindings from past longitudinal research on directions of effects concerning parenting and adolescent social anxiety symptoms using CLPM. One specific new finding in this respect is that when the between-person and the within-person associa-tions show opposite signs of direcassocia-tions (see our RI-CLPMs concerning mother-reported parenting), it is plausible that a CLPM does not indicate any significant linkages among the two constructs (see Supporting Information concerning mother-reported parenting). Thesefindings suggest that not just sig-nificant but also null findings in CLPMs may need to be reconsidered with novel methods such as RI-CLPMs. Because of the importance of trait factors in the development of social anxiety symptoms, which can include both genetics and temperamental or per-sonality factors (Spence & Rapee, 2016; Wong & Rapee, 2015), it is important to distinguish between-person (i.e., trait-level) associations and within-person dynamics.

At the same time, our study should be consid-ered in light of some limitations, which may

provide directions for future research. First, although our study provides information on associ-ations across a relatively large age span in adoles-cence, the question remains whether the annual assessments in our study represent the optimal tim-ing of assessments to capture transactional within-family processes. This study was set up to test for (in)consistencies among between-family and within-family estimates concerning associations between adolescent social anxiety symptoms and aspects of parenting (i.e., the ecological fallacy; Keijsers & Van Roekel, in press). However, it might also be that opposing or different processes operate across longer and shorter time intervals (i.e., the galloping horse fallacy; Keijsers & Van Roekel, in press). For example, although adolescents with high levels of internalizing symptoms may initially elicit more supportive parenting, they are assumed to set into motion a process of support erosion on the longer term in which the initially supportive parent–ado-lescent interaction becomes increasingly rejecting and constraining (Branje et al., 2010; Coyne, 1976; Joiner & Coyne, 1999; Nelemans et al., 2014). The current study design was not optimally tailored to address whether different processes may operate across longer and shorter time intervals. For inter-vention efforts, for example, it would be important to know whether increases in facilitative parenting may be associated with decreases in adolescent social anxiety symptoms across a shorter time inter-val than assessed in the current study. Guided by novel theoretical formulations regarding the direc-tion and sign of effects on different time scales, in future studies it may thus be important to look at potential within-family associations across a shorter time interval (e.g., using diaries), because these processes likely also operate across shorter time intervals, and/or link shorter and longer term mech-anisms as well as within- and between-person pro-cesses to each other in one integrated design (e.g., Voelkle, Brose, Schmiedek, & Lindenberger, 2014).

(13)

individual. When this is not realistic, however, and growth rates of the constructs of interest are corre-lated, SEs around the structural parameters may be slighter larger (although we have freely estimated the within-person residual variances in our RI-CLPMs to take some of this into account). Also, although ICCs suggested that a negligible part of the variance in all study variables was located at the classroom-level in a three-level design, the between-person variance may be slightly inﬂated with between-classroom variance. Moreover, in studies with longitudinal designs other than our design with relatively long time intervals of 1 year between assessments, for example, studies with measurement burst designs, there may be a need to differentiate between the within-person processes under study and the longer term developmental changes, as well as interindividual differences in the rate of change. In such cases, more complicated models, such as autoregressive latent trajectory models, may be a more appropriate analytical approach (see Bollen & Curran, 2004; Bollen & Zim-mer, 2010; Mund & Nestler, 2018). In future studies, it may also be interesting to employ growth models to examine whether in families with stronger changes in parenting there are also stronger changes in adolescents mental health over time (e.g., do adolescents who show stronger increases in social anxiety symptoms tend to have parents who show stronger increases in psychological con-trol over time?).

Third, care should be taken not to overgeneralize ourﬁndings. The data were collected in a particular region of Western Europe in a relatively well-func-tioning community sample of adolescents with a relatively homogeneous ethnic background. It is unclear whether our results can be extended to ado-lescents who live in other regions of the world, who have a more diverse socioeconomic and ethnic background, and who are more diverse in psy-chosocial functioning. Future research should strive to include more diverse samples to examine how the processes under scrutiny operate normatively within such samples. Fourth, other aspects of the parenting environment than the ones we examined, and parental overprotection in particular (Spence & Rapee, 2016; Wong & Rapee, 2015, 2016), have also been found relevant in association with adolescent social anxiety symptoms. In addition, future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to examine how different aspects of parenting operate together, in the same statistical model, in association with indicators of adolescent mental health, including social anxiety symptoms. Fifth and ﬁnally, our

ﬁndings seemed to suggest that for adolescent reports, psychological control was more strongly associated with adolescent social anxiety symptoms, whereas for mother reports autonomy support was more strongly associated with adolescent social anxiety symptoms. Future studies are needed to further examine and explain this potential differen-tial association between adolescent social anxiety symptoms and adolescent-reported constraining parenting and mother-reported facilitative parent-ing.

(14)

established findings at the between-person level in earlier work. Parallel to the application of novel analytical strategies, it is also urgent time to step back and integrate our findings by reframing our theories to be more specific regarding the ecological level of analysis, the timing of developmental pro-cesses, and the possible heterogeneity in how devel-opmental mechanisms operate (for a conceptual analysis, see Keijsers & Van Roekel, in press).

Conclusion

In conclusion, this 4-year longitudinal commu-nity study illustrates the importance of distinguish-ing between between-family and within-family associations in longitudinal research concerning parenting and adolescent mental health. In line with some recent longitudinal studies (e.g., Aunola et al., 2013; Dietvorst et al., 2017; Rekker et al., 2017), we found that the estimates at the between-family and the within-between-family level can be reversed, leading to a situation called a Simpson’s paradox (Kievit et al., 2013), and that results from RI-CLPM and CLPM may differ on important aspects. Speciﬁ-cally, concerning between-family associations in our RI-CLPMs, we found that adolescents who reported more social anxiety symptoms, compared to peers, reported higher parental psychological control and their mothers reported higher psychological control and lower parental autonomy support, compared to (mothers of) peers. At the within-family level, how-ever, after periods with higher adolescent social anxiety symptoms, mothers reported lower psycho-logical control and higher autonomy support across adolescence.

References

American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed.. Washing-ton, DC: Author.

Aunola, K., Tolvanen, A., Viljaranta, J., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2013). Psychological control in daily parent–child inter-actions increases children’s negative emotions. Journal of Family Psychology, 27, 453–462. https://doi.org/10. 1037/a0032891

Barber, B. K. (2002). Regulation as a multicultural concept and construct for adolescent health and development. Unpublished manuscript, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TE. Barlow, D. H. (2002). Anxiety and its disorders: The nature

and treatment of anxiety and panic (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.

Berry, D., & Willoughby, M. (2017). On the practical interpretability of cross-lagged panel models:

Rethinking a developmental workhorse. Child Develop-ment, 88, 1186–1206. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev. 12660

Bl€ote, A. W., Miers, A. C., Heyne, D. A., & Westenberg, P. M. (2015). Social anxiety and the school environment of adolescents. In K. Ranta, A. M. La Greca, L. Garcia-Lopez, & M. Marttunen (Eds.), Social anxiety and phobia in adolescents: Development, manifestation and intervention strategies (pp. 151–181). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16703-9_7

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent vari-ables. New York, NY: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/ 9781118619179

Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2004). Autoregressive Latent Trajectory (ALT) models: A synthesis of two tra-ditions. Sociological Methods and Research, 32, 336–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124103260222

Bollen, K. A., & Zimmer, C. (2010). An overview of the Autoregressive Latent Trajectory (ALT) model. In K. van Montfort, J. H. L. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Lon-gitudinal research with latent variables (pp. 153–176). Ber-lin, Germany: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-11760-2_5

Branje, S. J. T., Hale, III, W. W., Frijns, T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2010). Longitudinal associations between per-ceived parent–child relationship quality and depressive symptoms in adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psy-chology, 38, 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-010-9401-6

Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The development of anxiety: The role of control in the early environment. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 3–21. https://doi.org/10. 1037/0033-2909.124.1.3

Clark, D. M., & Wells, A. (1995). A cognitive model of social phobia. In R. Heimberg, M. Liebowitz, D. A. Hope, & F. R. Schneier (Eds.), Social phobia: Diagnosis, assessment and treatment (pp. 69–93). New York, NY: Guilford.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 Coyne, J. C. (1976). Depression and the response of

others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 186–193. https://doi.org/10.1037//0021-843X.85.2.186

Creswell, C., & O’Connor, T. G. (2011). Interpretation bias and anxiety in childhood: Stability, speciﬁcity and lon-gitudinal associations. Behavioural and Cognitive Psy-chotherapy, 39, 191–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1352 465810000494

De Los Reyes, A., & Ohannessian, C. M. (2016). Introduc-tion to the special issue: Discrepancies in adolescent-parent perceptions of the family and adolescent adjust-ment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 1957–1972. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0533-z

(15)

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: Motivational mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educa-tional Psychology, 83, 508–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-0663.83.4.508

Hamaker, E. L. (2012). Why researchers should think “within-person”: A paradigmatic rationale. In M. R. Mehl & T. S. Conner (Eds.), Handbook of research methods for studying daily life (pp. 43–61). New York, NY: Guil-ford.

Hamaker, E. L., Kuiper, R. M., & Grasman, R. P. P. P. (2015). A critique of the cross-lagged model. Psychologi-cal Methods, 20, 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0038889

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for ﬁt indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909 540118

Janssens, A., Goossens, L., Van den Noortgate, W., Col-pin, H., Verschueren, K., & Van Leeuwen, K. (2015). Parents’ and adolescents’ perspectives on parenting: Evaluating conceptual structure, measurement invari-ance, and criterion validity. Assessment, 22, 473–489. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114550477

Joiner, T. E., & Coyne, J. C. (1999). The interactional nature of depression: Advances in interpersonal approaches. Wash-ington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10311-000

Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Cana-dian Psychology, 49, 194–200. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0012754

Keijsers, L. (2016). Parental monitoring and adolescent problem behaviors: How much do we really know? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40, 271– 281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025415592515 Keijsers, L., & Van Roekel, E. (in press). Longitudinal

methods in adolescent psychology. Where could we go from here? And should we? In L. B. Hendry & M. Kloep (Eds.), Reframing adolescent research (pp. 70–91). London, UK: Routledge.

Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2003). Parenting of adolescents: Action or reaction? In A. C. Crouter & A. Booth (Eds.), Children’s inﬂuence on family dynamics: The neglected side of family relationships (pp. 121–151). New York, NY: Erl-baum.

Kessler, R. C., Avenevoli, S., Costello, E. J., Georgiades, K., Green, J. G., Gruber, M. J., . . . Merikangas, K. R. (2012). Prevalence, persistence, and sociodemographic correlates of DSM–IV disorders in the National Comor-bidity Survey Replication-Adolescent Supplement. Archives of General Psychiatry, 69, 372–380. https://doi. org/10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.160

Kievit, R. A., Frankenhuis, W. E., Waldorp, L. J., & Borsboom, D. (2013). Simpson’s paradox in psychological science: A practical guide. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 513. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00513

Kingery, J. N., Erdley, C. A., Marshall, K. C., Whitaker, K. G., & Reuter, T. R. (2010). Peer experiences of anx-ious and socially withdrawn youth: An integrative review of the developmental and clinical literature. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 13, 91–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10567-009-0063-2

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equa-tion modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. La Greca, A. M., & Lopez, N. (1998). Social anxiety

among adolescents: Linkages with peer relations and friendships. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 26, 83– 94. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022684520514

Laursen, B., & Collins, A. W. (2009). Parent–adolescent relationships during adolescence. In R. M. Lerner & L. Steinberg (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 3–42). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Lollis, S., & Kuczynski, L. (1997). Beyond one hand clap-ping: Seeing bidirectionality in parent–child relations. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 441–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407597144002

McLeod, B. D., Wood, J. J., & Weisz, J. R. (2007). Examin-ing the association between parentExamin-ing and childhood anxiety: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 27, 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2006.09.002 Meeus, W. H. J. (2016). Adolescent psychosocial

develop-ment: A review of longitudinal models and research. Developmental Psychology, 52, 1969–1993. https://doi. org/10.1037/dev0000243

Molenaar, P. C. M. (2004). A manifesto on psychology as idiographic science: Bringing the person back into sci-entiﬁc psychology, this time forever. Measurement: Inter-disciplinary Research & Perspective, 2, 201–218. https:// doi.org/10.1207/s15366359mea0204_1

Mund, M., & Nestler, S. (2018). Beyond the cross-lagged panel model: Next-generation statistical tools for analyz-ing interdependencies across the life course. Advances in Life Course Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alcr.2018. 10.002

Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.

Nelemans, S. A., Hale, III, W. W., Branje, S. J. T., Hawk, S. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2014). Maternal criticism and adolescent depressive and generalized anxiety disorder symptoms: A 6-year longitudinal community study. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 42, 755–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-013-9817-x

Nelemans, S. A., Meeus, W. H. J., Branje, S. J. T., Van Leeuwen, K., Colpin, H., Verschueren, K., & Goossens, L. (2017). Social Anxiety Scale for Adolescents (SAS-A) short form: Longitudinal measurement invariance in two community samples of youth. Assessment. https://doi. org/10.1177/1073191116685808

Papp, L. M. (2004). Capturing the interplay among within-and between-person processes using multilevel model-ing techniques. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 11, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appsy.2004.09.002 Rapee, R. M. (2001). The development of generalized

(16)

developmental psychopathology of anxiety (pp. 481–503). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi. org/10.1093/med:psych/9780195123630.001.0001 Rekker, R., Keijsers, L., Branje, S., Koot, H., & Meeus, W.

(2017). The interplay of parental monitoring and socioe-conomic status in predicting minor delinquency between and within adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 59, 155–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017. 06.001

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF02296192

Schuurman, N. K., Ferrer, E., De Boer-Sonnenschein, M., & Hamaker, E. L. (2016). How to compare cross-lagged associations in a multilevel autoregressive model. Psy-chological Methods, 21, 206–221. https://doi.org/10. 1037/met0000062

Spence, S. H., & Rapee, R. M. (2016). The etiology of social anxiety disorder: An evidence-based model. Beha-viour Research and Therapy, 86, 50–67. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.brat.2016.06.007

Van der Bruggen, C. O., Stams, G. J. J. M., & B€ogels, S. M. (2008). Research review: The relation between child and parent anxiety and parental control: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 1257– 1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01898.x Voelkle, M. C., Brose, A., Schmiedek, F., & Lindenberger,

U. (2014). Toward a uniﬁed framework for the study of between-person and within-person structures: Building a bridge between two research paradigms. Multivariate

Behavioral Research, 49, 193–213. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00273171.2014.889593

Wong, Q. J. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2015). The developmental psychopathology of social anxiety and phobia in ado-lescents. In K. Ranta, A. M. La Greca, L. J. Garcia-Lopez, & M. Marttunen (Eds.), Social anxiety and phobia in adolescents: Development, manifestation and intervention strategies (pp. 11–37). New York, NY: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16703-9_2

Wong, Q. J. J., & Rapee, R. M. (2016). The etiology and maintenance of social anxiety disorder: A synthesis of complimentary theoretical models and formulation of a new integrated model. Journal of Affective Disorders, 203, 84–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.05.069 Yap, M. B. H., Pilkington, P. D., Ryan, S. M., & Jorm, A.

F. (2014). Parental factors associated with depression and anxiety in young people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 156, 8–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.11.007

Supporting Information

Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of this article at the publisher’s website: